Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/101 People Who Are Really Screwing America


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

101 People Who Are Really Screwing America

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not appear to pass WP:BK Changed to keep.Tim1357 (talk) 01:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither does the Republican counterpart, and that one has survived, somehow. I say remove both, its clearly a well done flame war between editors without Wikipedia's best interests at heart. User:Nezzadar (speak) 01:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't think I was trying to promote my political intrests by nominating this article! I was just working off a list of articles that are books and are tagged as not notable. I would have nominated the Republican Counterpart if I had encountered it. Tim1357 (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: I found this, but it's not usable because all of the reviewers are bias ("PROGRESSIVE BOOKS, MOVIES, AND MUSIC- FOR PROGRESSIVES, BY PROGRESSIVES, ON BUZZFLASH"). I found two brief reviews. Joe Chill (talk) 02:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: non notable. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep if the other one is kept - you cannot have one and not the other. That would furthermore smack of political bias.--Tris2000 (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: If not kept, should be covered in 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America, as this was a direct response to it. I haven't looked and don't know if this response book was separately notable; this book was riding coattails on the short train of popularity of the other book. --Milowent (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is not how WP:NPOV works. NPOV applies to the content of an article, as does WP:WEIGHT. Just because a critical response to a book exists doesn't mean it automatically passes notability for being on the opposite end of the political spectrum. e.g. The God Delusion has dozens of these types of counter books many of which don't automatically slide past notability requirements because they are critical of the book. I think it is a big mistake to base this decision on WP:NPOV.
 * Delete : No significant coverage in secondary reliable sources. I found two WP:RS, one by the author himself. I went through every hit on Google, which was only 127 since after 127 Google said the rest are similar and have been omitted. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per article improvements and well-documented recent coverage regarding the book itself. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC) Wait. Probably not appropriate for an individual entry, but the book has a lot of press today (author reportedly caught fabricating inflammatory claims regarding Rush Limbaugh (which is just lazy)) and enough coverage may be spawned. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Limbaugh may have thrown a liferaft to this one. --Milowent (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem to be making many headlines. I'd say vote on what information is available. If it does become popular, there's still a week left of the AfD, and DRV is always an option later down the line. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. I think the recent mentions of this book in connection with the Rush Limbaugh fake quotes controversy (see e.g., ) might just be enough to qualify for notability, in combination with the existing reviews. It's pretty borderline, though - perhaps this book would be better treated by being merged into the section 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America. Robofish (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Satisfies WP:NOTE. Topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 04:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:VAGUEWAVE. I see no significant coverage. Care to share your findings? --Odie5533 (talk) 04:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Doing a bit of work on the article. :) Cirt (talk) 05:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still confused. The controversy is about MSNBC, CNN, the book, and Rush Limbaugh. Which article does it belong on? Perhaps an article by itself? It seems the main thing the book has going for it is the fact that a larger controversy is based on it. But the controversy seems to become more than just the book itself, and the article can barely stand without the controversy. Perhaps move the section to an article and delete the book, or just leave it how it is and keep. I'm undecided. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It all originates with the purported quotes in the book attributed without details, then no comment given by author and publisher to Associated Press, and then the relevant portion from the book deleted by The Huffington Post after the author failed to substantiate it - all this leads one to surmise the focus is the book. Cirt (talk) 07:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I'm still not sure. The response concentrates on the author, and two quotes in the book. I guess I was hoping more reviews of the book could be found, or some critical recognition outside of the tight-knit liberal circle (HuffPo, Nation, NPR which borrows from Nation). If everyone else agrees that the section belongs on the book's article, I'm all for keeping it. Just can't quite make up my mind on that point. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly your point is a valid one, however like I said I am of the mind that the best place to include this material is the article about the book, as that is where it all began. And the controversy with regard to the book is significantly discussed in independent secondary sources, which is a good thing. :) Cirt (talk) 07:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Update: Did some research and added a bit to the article. Cirt (talk) 06:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  —Cirt (talk) 06:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  —Cirt (talk) 06:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  —Cirt (talk) 06:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  —Cirt (talk) 06:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per 's phenomenal work on the article. Sources, such as this one from The Nation prove that this book passes WP:N. Cunard (talk) 06:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, for the kind words about my work! Most appreciated. :) Cirt (talk) 07:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'd consider a 200 word review in the magazine the author writes for passes WP:N. Regardless, Cirt certainly has improved the article. Kudos. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) Cirt (talk) 07:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep sufficient coverage for notability. sephia karta  |  di mi  10:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well sourced. Notable enough. -- &oelig; &trade; 18:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as Nom the limbah incident happened after nomination, so i am changing my vote. Tim1357 (talk) 01:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, definantly had a short run of notability' ie coverage in every major news network in the US. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 14:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Crappy book, but it meets the criteria for inclusion, so... -- ChrisO (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.